Military build-up nears completion

[spot]

They can't be so stupid, surely?http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

[Galbally]

spot;822431 wrote: They can't be so stupid, surely?http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.


Maybe the Yanks could persuede the Chinese to bomb Iran into submission, then you'd be all for it I presume.

[spot]

I'm a perfectly normal chap with perfectly normal views just like anyone else, I don't see why I should be mocked!

The Damascus Summit at the weekend's "declaration condemned terrorism in all its forms and supported making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, mainly nuclear weapons", I wonder how many are on the carriers. Bad form, carting stuff like that about the world, they should keep it at home.

I quite liked Gadhafi's comment to the summit:The Libyan official said those Arab leaders who do not work toward a unified Arab nation could potentially find themselves facing a fate similar to that of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who was executed in 2006.

"One day, you will see yourselves in a similar situation and at that time no one should blame (anyone) but himself because we did not work sincerely to build a strong and unified Arab nation. Each one of you hates others. Syria is not on good terms with its neighbors, while Libya has stronger ties with Italy than it has with Tunisia or Egypt," Gadhafi said Saturday.

[spot]

You really dislike all the wrong people, don't you.

[spot]

If I remember correctly, Ronald Reagan killed his daughter.

[gmc]

spot;822431 wrote: They can't be so stupid, surely?http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.


GW only has a few months left to start a war with Iran. i suppose the question is would the military obey an order to attack a country against whom no formal declaratio of war has been made and which has not attacked the US

[hoppy]

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

It MUST BE TRUE. It's from a Russian source. LMFAO.

[spot]

Nobody can doubt that they're planning it, the question is whether they'll carry through and do it. I bet if you look in the right room in the Pentagon you'll find they've planned to do the same to Britain but it's less likely they'll implement the plan[1].







[1] Unless Respect is returned with an outright majority at the next general election.

[hoppy]

And, we don't know what Great Britian might be planning either, do we?

[hoppy]

I meant Great Britain

[Pheasy]

So who's attacking who, and when are they planning it? :yh_hypno.... it would be nice to know which country I should be in, and when!

[hoppy]

I'm taking my chances right where I'm at. Something is gonna kill me anyway.

[koan]

The only related news stories I could find are that Australia is sending naval support and that there is a dispute over Iranian ownership of three islands.

That a war could begin without even asking the opinion of Americans is quite astonishing. I'd expect the government to slowly start spreading horror stories through their media to gather public support.

[Galbally]

All militaries (well the proper ones anyway) plan for all eventualities, for instance I am sure the French Military has a plan that should the worst come to the worst and France is forced to use its entire Nuclear arsenal in an exchange with the US or China, or Russia, or even Britain, they have a plan for it. It doesn't mean they will do it, or that its even a very useful or realistic plan, simply that if they have a certain set of capabilities they will naturally plan to use them in a variety of scenarios. Thats being responsible, although a little odd as well to the ordinary person, but who ever said war was a rational or clever idea?

As to Iran, its hard to know, its certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the US will attack Iran, or they could be attacked by Israel, or even Pakistan, or someone else. I think you can be pretty sure that there isn't a chance that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program (or probably even a civilian one) without provoking a military confrontation. You can debate whether thats ethical or fair or whatever, but they are not going to be allowed to obtain nuclear capability, I am sure of that. To be honest if I was the President of the US or Israel I wouldn't allow them to obtain any nuclear capability either.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;822849 wrote: All militaries (well the proper ones anyway) plan for all eventualities, for instance I am sure the French Military has a plan that should the worst come to the worst and France is forced to use its entire Nuclear arsenal in an exchange with the US or China, or Russia, or even Britain, they have a plan for it. It doesn't mean they will do it, or that its even a very useful or realistic plan, simply that if they have a certain set of capabilities they will naturally plan to use them in a variety of scenarios. Thats being responsible, although a little odd as well to the ordinary person, but who ever said war was a rational or clever idea?

As to Iran, its hard to know, its certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that the US will attack Iran, or they could be attacked by Israel, or even Pakistan, or someone else. I think you can be pretty sure that there isn't a chance that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program (or probably even a civilian one) without provoking a military confrontation. You can debate whether thats ethical or fair or whatever, but they are not going to be allowed to obtain nuclear capability, I am sure of that. To be honest if I was the President of the US or Israel I wouldn't allow them to obtain any nuclear capability either.




Under which law wound anyone try to prevent Iran (or anyone else for that matter) developing a civil nuclear power facility?

[spot]

I'm sure they've switched carrier groups quite often. This is labelled as "the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003", not the same thing at all.

[spot]

I saw it, I thought we'd be interested to know it was being said. I'm sure that if it were being discussed openly there would indeed be a lot of hot air about it, that's a good reason to take advantage of an incident and misinterpret it out of all proportion. The Gulf of Tonkin, you'll remember, was known by Johnson at the time to not be what he claimed it was in public. It was an excuse.

[Galbally]

Bryn Mawr;823056 wrote: Under which law wound anyone try to prevent Iran (or anyone else for that matter) developing a civil nuclear power facility?


The law of, "we have the ability (at the moment) to stop you doing things we percieve to be not in our best interests, and we will work out a legal pretext under international law (seeing as we invented it in 1945 anyway) by which we will stop you one way or the other".

[hoppy]

Didn't some civil war general say"Hit 'em firstest with the mostest" or something like that? Sounds good to me. Lol.

[gmc]

koan;822788 wrote: The only related news stories I could find are that Australia is sending naval support and that there is a dispute over Iranian ownership of three islands.

That a war could begin without even asking the opinion of Americans is quite astonishing. I'd expect the government to slowly start spreading horror stories through their media to gather public support.


Like they did before?



Mind you i don't know how influential fox news actually is or even watch it myself but reality doesn't seem to feature much.

At least that arsehole Blair is away and maybe this time out MP's will find some backbone and keep us out of anything if it develops.

[spot]

hoppy;823135 wrote: Didn't some civil war general say"Hit 'em firstest with the mostest" or something like that? Sounds good to me. Lol.


It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War.

[Galbally]

spot;823151 wrote: It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War.


"Just" wars are a philosophical concept. Personally I think you can have wars that are definably "just" alright (but by your own terms of course, the enemy rarely agrees it deserves a good arse-kicking). But even if just, they are still wars, and still represent a complete failure of human imagination and morality, but at least unjust wars don't tend to be fought so sanctimoniously as just ones.

I also think that the conception of an appeal to legality and ethics in international power politics (as opposed to domestic politics, which is quite different in almost all cases) is based essentially on absolute weakness in terms of real power, the Americans think they way they do because, and only because, over the past 60 years they have the material power to effect outcomes without requiring the full permission of anyone, only the tacit aquisensce of the rest of planet Earth. That reality is rapidly changing however, and Iraq has been a harsh lesson for all concerned in the limitations of the power of industrial states in the modern world, whether thats actually a good thing in the long run is hard to judge. It would seem better than there isn't one completely dominant nation on Earth, but the problem with very great periods of change is that you really just don't know whether you will end up better off at the end of it, its the nature of change isn't it? Perhaps the Chinese will reverse that trend of the decline of the role of the state once more in ordering the world and re-invigorate the power of the state in crushing all percieved opposition to its dominion.

To me, the morality of US foreign policy is pretty much the same as that of the British Empire in the 19th century, though less nakedly racist, xenophobic, and vainglorious. In general, power provides confidence and more importantly ability. The major European nations after WWII developed a belief and love affair with the development of the primacy of a new rule of international power politics, based on an internationally accepted legal system represented in the UN (largely a well worded and intentioned fiction because it has no force of application) based on some form of Judeo-Christian ethics which unfortunately 3/5s of the planets population have no interest in.

But it suited and still suits many of the problems of Europe to defer to an agreed system of international European law based on the declaration of European Human Rights, however what is applicable in Europe is not always by extension applicable to the globe, as Europe is not the world, and it will not have the ability to remake the world in its image as it did in previous centuries.

I am not saying that international law is not important, of course it is, it has always been necessary for states to have rules on how they interact with one another. But they are mutually agreed rules, made up by the powerful parties involved, they are not absolute rules based on some higher morality that either exists or is in any way enforceable or accepted by everyone, and anyone who claims they are is being disengenous. The EU is an example where the framework of using law to bring countries together in shared interest has worked very well, but that was accomplished in an already existing zone of European civilization, and also backed up by the reality of the US military.

This happened because they needed it, as of course for Europe itself the old model of the completely sovereign, militarized nation state, lead to the physical destruction of the continent of Europe, the collapse of almost all of its states, its division into 2 zones of US and Russian influence and also because they simply lacked the military means to enforce their views on anyone (or each other) any more following the second war, hence the creation of what became the EU, the collapse of the Imperialist European mission, and its discrediting, and hence the bright sparkly attitude conversion towards the primacy of international law in the post-war era (really as a means to promote European political ideas across the world (and don't forget the US itself is a European political idea) without having to spend money and men on huge European armies of armoured divisions and battle fleets) To the moral objection to that slightly cynical view I would say yes legal argument is more agreeable than war, but whether its more effective without ultimately the ability and will to use force to achieve ones ends is another debate.

Of course Britain has famously chosen to ignore the uncomfortable post war European reality, (or at least has tried to ignore it) and instead has hitched its fate largely to that of the US, while keeping a very luke warm foot in the EU door, (which is understanable, as they speak English and were on the same side in "The War" unlike the Germans) in the hope of not having to come fully to terms with its own post-war loss of power and influence and indeed full sovereignty, only time will tell the full impact of this policy for the long-term European future of England, Wales and Scotland will be.

However, the Americans have a completely different experience, and while being essentially a country of laws internally, is also a nation that has enormous naked power and influence externally, and whose enormous military potential and economic potential essentially underwrote the European (and general global) post-war phase of uneasy peace 1945-2001 (while for most of that time confronting the USSR), so the post-war UN world was one which was essentially created by the USA, hence they are not quite so reverent about the UN and the international legal structure, as when you build something yourself, you tend not to be so starry eyed about how it actually works.

The US experience of the 20th century was one of huge victory and achievement in which the American model worked spectacularly, not the calamitous retreat from global dominion suffered by Britain, or the defeat and national humiliation suffered by Germany or France, (particularly in Germany's case due to the moral abyss that Hitler sank the country into, as well as its total destruction) this is the main difference in world outlook between the US and the powers of Europe.

The post war system worked pretty well, especially for Europe, and Japan, but that period is now definetly coming to an end, and a new reality is starting to emerge in our 21st century world. American dominance is no longer taken as a given, nor is general peace, or economic security. In these circumstances in a world where humans posses the technology to annilhilate each other more or less instantaneously, no matter how powerful, you will find a far more hard-headed, though possibly not un-constructive attitude to international relations.

Its my thesis that in the coming decades you will see a further erosion of the UN, which is to be honest pretty irrelevant when it comes down to the big issues and becoming more so, and is essentially a talking shop to allow the chattering classes of each country the illusion that their opinions are important.

What you will have is a multi-polar world with quite strict, (but only through implication) rules. It will resemble the old concert of Europe in the 19th century, except instead of Britain, Prussia, Austria, France, Russia, and the Ottomans, you will have the US, the EU, China, Russia, India, Japan, (perhaps there may be one or two others dependent on events), the others will be tolerated, but essentially irrelevant in terms of large scale geopolitics, (though there are other important countries in other, lesser respects). They may ultimately actually change the UN security council and set it up to be more what it really is, which is a cover for the power of the large states, through the allowance of legal niceities for the small powerless states. It would be more honest anyway.

[hoppy]

spot;823151 wrote: It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War.


"Just" war? You mean wait until we are attacked, then have to play catch up and hope we can win, like Pearl harbor? Thanks, but no thanks. Would rather win an unjust war than lose a just war, or barely win.

[spot]

Surprise me hoppy, which country do you think might attack the USA? Iran? Seriously?

The conduct of a Just War does allow pre-emptive attack when faced by imminent invasion. I'm just staggered that you think Iran might attack your Homeland.

Would you like me to explain what a Just War is, since my initial comment that "It's wonderful how Americans seem not to have even heard of the concept of a Just War" seems entirely accurate.

[Bryn Mawr]

Galbally;823130 wrote: The law of, "we have the ability (at the moment) to stop you doing things we percieve to be not in our best interests, and we will work out a legal pretext under international law (seeing as we invented it in 1945 anyway) by which we will stop you one way or the other".


In other words, I have the right to go next door and beet the sh!t out out of the old dear that live there 'cos I'm stronger than her and don't like her anyway and it furthers my interests to do so?

Any country that does not abide by international law is pariah and any country who invades / starts violence against another is a terrorist nation.

Might does *not* make right!

[hoppy]

You don't have to be attacked physically to be threatened. In my book, a threat is the same as an attack.

[spot]

hoppy;823402 wrote: You don't have to be attacked physically to be threatened. In my book, a threat is the same as an attack.


That's what I said. The conduct of a Just War does allow pre-emptive attack when faced by imminent invasion. I'm just staggered that you think Iran might attack your Homeland.

In what way has Iran threatened your Homeland, hoppy?

[hoppy]

Then Israel has the right to make a smoking hole of Iran and several other neighbors. They certainly are threatened.

[Bryn Mawr]

koan;822788 wrote: The only related news stories I could find are that Australia is sending naval support and that there is a dispute over Iranian ownership of three islands.

That a war could begin without even asking the opinion of Americans is quite astonishing. I'd expect the government to slowly start spreading horror stories through their media to gather public support.


I've been watching a program about a certain Paul Bremer - now there's a horror story if you like. Not only failed to ask the opinions of Americans in general but also failed to ask the opinion of American Generals, diplomats intelligence or even the President!

[spot]

hoppy;823408 wrote: Then Israel has the right to make a smoking hole of Iran and several other neighbors. They certainly are threatened.


So what?

In what way has Iran threatened your Homeland, hoppy? You're gung-ho about attacking theirs.

[hoppy]

Maybe some of us feel Israel IS our homeland. As far as I know, the US and Israel are allies. If your best friend was being constantly threatened by a gang of bullies, would you just turn away? Israel is under constant threat. They are surrounded by enemies. If Iran threatens Israel, they threaten the USA. Iran KNOWS this but are determined to go ahead with their devious plans, so what they get, they deserve.

[spot]

If Israel is a part of the USA then they should have representation in Congress and vote in your elections. Obviously they're a different country.

It's impossible for any country to invade Israel because Israel deploys hundreds of nuclear weapons and would use them in such circumstances. The same is true of the USA. Neither country is at risk of attack by any other country on earth.

I agree that if a country goes to war then other countries can be drawn in by alliances. The country going to war can either demonstrate that it's a Just War or they've committed a War Crime. That's what the Nuremberg Trials concluded when they established that area of International Law.

In what way has Iran threatened your Homeland, hoppy? You're goading it to attack Iran, remember. Iran isn't a risk either to the USA or, not that it matters, to Israel either.

Neither, I note, was Iraq.

[hoppy]

spot;823455 wrote: If Israel is a part of the USA then they should have representation in Congress and vote in your elections. Obviously they're a different country.

It's impossible for any country to invade Israel because Israel deploys hundreds of nuclear weapons and would use them in such circumstances. The same is true of the USA. Neither country is at risk of attack by any other country on earth.

I agree that if a country goes to war then other countries can be drawn in by alliances. The country going to war can either demonstrate that it's a Just War or they've committed a War Crime. That's what the Nuremberg Trials concluded when they established that area of International Law.

In what way has Iran threatened your Homeland, hoppy? You're goading it to attack Iran, remember. Iran isn't a risk either to the USA or, not that it matters, to Israel either.

Neither, I note, was Iraq.


That Iran isn't a risk is only your opinion. And, who will enforce international law if the USA and Israel is abristle with nukes?

[spot]

hoppy;823459 wrote: That Iran isn't a risk is only your opinion. And, who will enforce international law if the USA and Israel is abristle with nukes?


Might makes right? That's very short-sighted and it's not going to make you any friends abroad.

Who needs friends when you have ten thousand warheads, eh?

It's not a question of "Iran's a risk" or opinion, it's a question of protecting against an imminent attack on your Homeland. Or, in Israel's case, against Israel. Do you really think Iran poses such an imminent threat to either country?

[hoppy]

Only a fool would let Iran aquire nukes to find out.

[spot]

hoppy;823469 wrote: Only a fool would let Iran aquire nukes to find out.


In what way would Iran's possession of nuclear weapons threaten the Homeland of either the USA or (since you insist on speaking on behalf of Israel while committing the US to attack Iran on Israel's behalf) of Israel? Both the USA and Israel have hundreds more nuclear weapons than Iran in any circumstances could build.

To argue that Iran should be attacked this year, despite your own Intelligence community saying this year that it's most likely Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003, despite the inability of Iran to ever use nuclear weapons to attack another country, is to go beyond common sense or reason. It's to wage aggressive war, which is a defined War Crime.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. Iran has no nuclear weapons development program.

The argument for going into Iraq was the same and Iraq had none either.

[hoppy]

Again, your opinion.

[spot]

hoppy;823473 wrote: Again, your opinion.


Which of my statements was opinion?

Both the USA and Israel have hundreds more nuclear weapons than Iran in any circumstances could build? Fact.

Your own Intelligence community saying this year that it's most likely Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003? Fact.

The inability of Iran to ever use nuclear weapons to attack another country? Fact. They'd be attacked in turn by countries with far more weaponry, it would be suicidal. Iran is a stable civilized country of 70 million men, women and children and you're trying to talk your country into killing large numbers of them.

Aggressive war is a defined War Crime? Fact.

Iran has no nuclear weapons? Fact.

Iran has no nuclear weapons development program? See your Intelligence community report.

The argument for going into Iraq was the same and Iraq had none either? Fact.

[hoppy]

Ahmadinejad: Iran is approaching nuclear 'peak', Israel's days are numbered

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 73,00.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran is approaching the "peak" in its nuclear program and will not yield to Western pressure to halt its activities, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad was speaking in the southwestern town of Bushehr near the site of Iran's planned first nuclear power plant, being built with Russian help, and predicted the country would have nuclear electricity by this time next year.

"If you (Western powers) imagine that the Iranian nation will back down you are making a mistake," he said in a televised speech.

"On the nuclear path we are moving towards the peak," he said without elaborating.

Turning his attention to Israel, Ahmadinejad said, "The religious Palestinian people will bring down the last screen with its powerful hand on the Zionists' puppet theater. It's time to end the puppet theater of this fake regime."

The Iranian president noted that Israel's days were numbered and that it has reached its end.

Turning to the Western powers supporting Israel, he said, "Those who remain silent in light of this regime's crimes and support it should know that they are taking part in the bloodshed of the Palestinian people and will be tried in the future.

"The world's states will never forget these crimes," the Iranian president was quoted as saying by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

Defying international pressure, Iran has been working on producing its own nuclear fuel, technology the West fears will be used to make atomic bombs. Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.

He was speaking two days after Iran received the eighth and final consignment of nuclear fuel from Russia for the Bushehr plant. Tehran has said the plant will start in mid-2008, though past deadlines have slipped.

"Next year at this time ... nuclear electricity should flow in Iran's electricity network," he told the crowd.

Russia delivered the first shipment of uranium fuel rods on December 17 and urged Tehran to scrap its efforts to produce nuclear fuel. Tehran says its work is peaceful and has refused to stop.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, says it wants to build a network of nuclear plants so it can preserve more of its oil and gas for export. It says it wants to make nuclear fuel itself to guarantee its supplies.

World powers last week agreed the outline of a third UN sanctions resolution against Iran which calls for mandatory travel bans and asset freezes for specific Iranian officials and vigilance on banks in the country.

[spot]

Stop copy/pasting side-issues and answer the points if you have answers to them. If you haven't, I'm not surprised at all.

[hoppy]

I believe I asked who was going to enforce international law. No answer. I'm not surprised.

[spot]

I expect we'll have a worldwide embargo on anything saying USA, don't you?

As an aside, I can't see anything in that article that I disagree with and I can't see any line of it that's relevant to the discussion we're having. Iran's stood firm on acquiring a nuclear electric capacity, good for Iran and Russia. It's time to end the puppet theater of this fake [Israeli] regime? Damn right it is. Those who remain silent in light of this regime's crimes and support it should know that they are taking part in the bloodshed of the Palestinian people and will be tried in the future. The world's states will never forget these crimes? I couldn't put it better myself. It has nothing to do with either the USA or Israel attacking Iran.

[koan]

ok. I found an "article" and I know it will raise some hackles because it's from 911truth.com but, it's a good summary of a lot of things that would otherwise take me a long time to write. I'm not as dedicated as Galbally :p

American voices, believing that there will be a strike on Iran.

I'm not exactly sure why they think Cheney is the head honcho though.

[hoppy]

spot;823482 wrote: I expect we'll have a worldwide embargo on anything saying USA, don't you?

As an aside, I can't see anything in that article that I disagree with and I can't see any line of it that's relevant to the discussion we're having. Iran's stood firm on acquiring a nuclear electric capacity, good for Iran and Russia. It's time to end the puppet theater of this fake [Israeli] regime? Damn right it is. Those who remain silent in light of this regime's crimes and support it should know that they are taking part in the bloodshed of the Palestinian people and will be tried in the future. The world's states will never forget these crimes? I couldn't put it better myself. It has nothing to do with either the USA or Israel attacking Iran.


Thank you for that insight into your character. You sound as if your saying it's ok for Israeli's to die, but not Iranians. Judging by the threats uttered by Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, he will do all he can to carry this out, either himself or by provoking others to help. I'm sad you feel my people need to be killed.

[koan]

Speaking for myself, if the US bombs Iran I will go from viewing the USA as a rogue state to viewing them as the prime terrorist 'group' in the world. I'm afraid for my friends in the US.